coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Topolščica.
6.  On 27 June 1994 the applicant was injured in a car accident. She had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 22 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 11,003,980 tolars (approximately 46,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 11 January 1996 and 1 December 1998 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 22 April 1996 and 7 May 1999 she made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 19 November 1997 and 17 September 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 December 1999.
8.  On 31 December 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 19 October 2000 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 January 2001.
9.  On 14 March 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 30 May 2001.
On 8 June 2001 the court corrected the typos and miscalculations in the judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 12 June 2001.
10.  On 8 June 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 3 October 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and raised the amount of damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 November 2002.
11.  On 10 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested the second-instance court to correct its judgment.
On 5 June 2003 the second-instance court corrected its judgment at the request of the applicant.
On 27 January 2005 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 March 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Ternivka, the Dnipropetrovsk region.
6.  The applicant is the former employee of the Pavlogradska State Mine. He is suffering from an occupational disease.
7.  On 8 October 2001 the Ternivka Town Court ordered the Mine to pay the applicant UAH 13,678[1] in occupational disability allowance arrears.
8.  On 14 November 2001 the Pavlograd Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
9.  According to the Government, the judgment was enforced in instalments: during the periods of November – December 2001, March – December 2002, August – December 2003, and July – November 2004 the applicant received a total of UAH 10,472[2], and on 21 December 2004 he received UAH 3,206[3].
10.  The applicant did not contest that the judgment had been enforced in full on the latter date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 8 March 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against an insurance company (“the respondent”) seeking compensation for damage caused by a fire in her house. On 2 July 1993 the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed her claim.
6.  On appeal, on 6 February 1996 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held several hearings and heard two witnesses through the Biograd Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Biogradu). On 1 June 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave a new judgment awarding the applicant the damages in part. Both parties appealed.
8.  On 5 December 2000 the Zagreb County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 8 March 2001 the court requested the applicant to provide the addresses of the witnesses she had proposed. The applicant did not comply with this request.
10.  The court held further hearings on 22 November 2002, 4 April, 12 September and 5 December 2003.
11.  On 5 October 2004 the court gave judgment accepting the applicant’s claim in part.
12.  Both parties appealed and the proceedings are still pending before the second-instance court.
13.  Meanwhile, on 31 October 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 9 April 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her complaint as ill-founded, finding that the competent courts acted expeditiously and that the only delay in the proceedings (between 8 March 2001 and 22 November 2002) was attributable to the applicant on account of her failure to provide the addresses of the proposed witnesses.
5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Naklo.
6. On 12 August 1993 the applicant was dismissed by his employer MC due to economic reasons.
On 17 September 1993 the MC’s Complaints Commission rejected his complaint concerning the dismissal.
7.  On 15 October 1993 the applicant instituted proceedings against MC in the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) seeking the annulment of the MC’s first and second instance decisions concerning his dismissal.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.
According to the information supplied by the Government, five hearings were held between 23 September 1994 and 29 November 1995. The hearing held on 15 March 1995 was adjourned due to the absence of parties and the court subsequently decided to suspend the proceedings. At the request of the applicant, the proceedings continued after 17 July 1995.
At the last hearing, the (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 22 December 1995.
8.  On 28 December 1995 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).
On 26 June 1996 and 11 March 1997 the applicant urged the court to decide on his appeal.
On 25 September1997 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 October 1997.
9.  On 14 November 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 24 February 1998 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 16 March 1998.
10.  On 13 May 1998 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 3 June 1998 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) requested the applicant to supplement his appeal, which he did on 16 June and 23 December 1998.
On 11 September 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 29 September 2000.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Livorno.
6.  He is the owner of a flat in Livorno, which he had let to I.M.
7.  In a registered letter of 20 February 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 September 1990 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 September 1990, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 8 October 1990, which was made enforceable on 11 October 1990, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1992.
10.  On 9 April 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 28 April 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
12.  On 30 May 1992, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 June 1992.
13.  Between 23 June 1992 and 29 November 2001, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  In the meanwhile, pursuant to Article 6 of Law No. 431 of 1998, on 15 July 1999, the tenant asked the Livorno Magistrate to postpone the enforcement proceedings. On 7 April 2000, the Livorno Magistrate set a fresh date for 24 November 2000.
15.  On 9 July 2001, the tenant asked the Livorno Magistrate to postpone the enforcement proceedings.
16.  On 20 July 2001, the Livorno Magistrate decided to provisionally suspend the enforcement and adjourned the hearing until 5 October 2001.
17.  On 5 October 2001, the hearing was reported to 19 October 2001.
18.  On 26 October 2001, the Livorno Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated as soon as possible.
19.  On 6 December 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 25 August 1994 the applicant was severely injured in an accident at work in a carpenters’ workshop. VE, the applicant’s employer, had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 31 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against VE and ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 10,337,422 tolars (approximately 43,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
He also sought an exemption from court fees.
Between 30 December 1997 and 5 September 2001 the applicant lodged twenty-six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 30 December 1997 and 3 January 2001 he made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 18 January 1999 and 28 March 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed commission of three medical experts and two additional medical experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 15 April 2002.
On 10 April 2002 the court asked the applicant to complete his request for an exemption from court fees. Since the applicant failed to comply, the court dismissed his request on 24 April 2002.
8.  On 18 April 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) against the first-instance court’s judgment and also requested that the court amended the judgment. ZT and VE cross-appealed.
The first instance-court corrected the judgment on 24 April 2002.
On 28 August 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision on the exemption from court fees.
On 4 December 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeals in part and dismissed the VE’s and ZT’s appeal. The court remitted the case, in the part referring to the exemption from court fees, to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 19 January 2004.
9.  On 30 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT and VE cross-appealed.
On 1 December 2005 the court allowed the appeals in part and lowered the amount of the damages awarded. The judgment was served on the applicant on 20 January 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Aleksin in the Tula Region.
5.  On 11 October 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Tula granted the applicant’s claim against the Tula Regional Department of the Federal Employment Service and awarded him RUR 5,294.69 (EUR 197). On 16 April 2002 the Tula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
6.  On 23 May 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court altered the judgment, indicating that the award was payable by the Ministry of Finance at the expense of the Treasury.
7.  On 12 February 2003 the Tula Regional Department of the Ministry of Finance applied for supervisory review of the judgment. On 31 August 2004 the Tula Regional Court refused their application.
8.  On 3 December 2004 the Treasury paid the amount outstanding to the applicant’s bank account.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ruše.
6.  On 15 January 1992 the applicant instituted denationalization proceedings in the Ruše Municipality (Občina Ruše) seeking restitution of a property previously owned by her grandmother.
On 17 April 1992 the Municipality forwarded the applicant’s claim to the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno Sodišče v Mariboru, enota v Mariboru). The court dismissed her claim twice and declared a lack of jurisdiction in the case. However, both decisions had been quashed on appeal and the case was ultimately considered by the renamed Maribor Local Court (Okrajno Sodišče v Mariboru).
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.
Of the four hearings held between 8 December 1994 and 27 May 1999, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
On 5 May 2000 the court gave a judgement dismissing the applicant’s claim.
7.  On 23 May 2000 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru).
On 26 September 2000 the court allowed her appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
8. On 13 November 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing.
On 5 July 2002 the court found that the legal grounds for the denationalisation proceedings existed but suspended the part of the proceedings concerning the form and means of restitution until the decision concerning the legal grounds became final.
9. On 19 July 2002 the first defendant (the National Farm Land and Forest Fund, represented by the State Attorney) and on 23 August 2002 the second defendant (the Selnica ob Dravi Agricultural Cooperative) appealed against that decision to the Maribor Higher Court.
 On 22 October 2002 the court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination by a new judge.
10. Between 12 November 2003 and 7 November 2005 the Maribor Local Court held four hearings. A hearing scheduled for 2 March 2005 was called off on the applicant’s request.
During the proceedings, the court appointed two experts to assess the property at issue.
Between 14 January and 9 February 2005 the applicant lodged three written submissions in which she disagreed with the estimated costs for one of the expert opinions.
On 9 November 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
The proceedings are still pending.
11. Throughout the proceedings, the applicant lodged three requests for supervision with the President of the Maribor Local Court and three petitions with the Human Rights Ombudsman (Varuh človekovih pravic) complaining about the length of the denationalisation proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Jelsa.
5.  The applicant’s mother died on 1 May 1994 and inheritance proceedings were opened before the Stari Grad Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Starom Gradu).
6.  On 8 June 1999 the court issued a decision distributing the property between the applicant and his brother. The relevant part of that decision reads:
... the land registry division of this court shall register the ownership of the heirs [listed above], once [that part of the decision] becomes final...
7.  Subsequently, the applicant’s brother lodged an appeal against that decision complaining about the ruling on the costs of the proceedings.
8.  On 12 April 2002 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) declared the appeal inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 22 May 2002.
9.  It would appear that the applicant’s ownership of the inherited property has to date not been recorded in the land register.
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Radovljica.
6.  During the works on a nearby motorway, some plots of the applicant’s land were damaged by the investor – the National Road Administration of Ljubljana (“the NRAL”).
7.  On 4 July 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the NRAL in the Kranj Basic Court, Radovljica Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Kranju, Enota v Radovljici), seeking compensation in the amount of 2,487,490 Slovenian tolars (approximately 10,370 euros).
On 22 April 1993 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint an expert to assess the damage sustained by the applicant.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant appealed against the court’s decision on the expert’s costs. On 9 January 1995 he also appealed against the subsequently issued correcting decision concerning these costs. On 27 February 1996 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) rejected the second applicant’s appeal.
In the meantime, the Slovenian judicial system was reorganized and the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju), on 1 January 1995, obtained jurisdiction in the present case.
On 6 May 1998 the applicant made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 11 March and 7 June 1999, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 4 September 1999.
8.  On 17 September 1999 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court. The NRAL cross-appealed.
On 23 March 2000 the applicant made a request to expedite the proceedings.
On 11 October 2000, the Higher Court upheld both appeals and the case was remitted to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on an unspecified date.
9.  In the re-examination proceedings, between 28 March and 3 December 2001, the applicant filed three written submissions.
The court appointed a new expert to asses the damage.
Of the three hearings held between 28 May 2001 and 18 September 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, one hearing fixed for 3 May 2001 was called off on the applicant’s request.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 2 December 2003.
10. On 15 December 2003 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.
On 2 March 2005 the court upheld the applicant’s appeal regarding the costs of the proceedings and in this part remitted the case to the first instance court. The court rejected the remainder of the appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 April 2005.
11. On 30 March 2005 the Kranj District Court issued a new decision on the costs of the proceedings, which was served on the applicant on 6 April 2005.
12.  On 18 April 2005 the applicant appealed also against this decision.
On 23 November 2005, the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
The decision was served on the applicant on 13 December 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Rostov in the Yaroslavl Region.
5.  On 5 October 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of theft. On 19 April 2001 the proceedings were discontinued as no indications of a criminal offence had been established.
6.  The applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior for the damage sustained through the unlawful prosecution.
7.  On 26 September 2001 the Rostovskiy District Court of the Yaroslavl Region granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUR 5,000 (EUR 184). As no appeal had been lodged within the ten-day statutory time-limit, on 8 October 2001 the judgment became binding and the District Court issued the applicant with a writ of enforcement.
8.  On 15 November 2001 the Moscow bailiffs returned the writ to the applicant, indicating that he should have submitted it directly to the Ministry of Finance.
9.  On 14 January 2002 the applicant sent the writ to the Ministry of Finance which acknowledged its receipt on 11 February 2002.
10.  On 25 April 2002 the Ministry of Finance forwarded the writ to the Ministry of the Interior. According to the Government, the Ministry of the Interior decided that payment should be effected by the Ministry of Finance and returned the writ.
11.  On 16 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance asked the Ministry of the Interior whether the judgment had been appealed against. On 21 August 2003 the Ministry of the Interior responded to the inquiry.
12.  On 10 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance paid the amount outstanding to the applicant’s bank account. The applicant was not informed about the payment.
13.  In November 2003 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment. On 18 December 2003 the Office forwarded his letter to the Ministry of Finance. No further replies have been received.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Makyyvka, the Donetsk region.
6.  The applicant is an employee of the State Joint Stock Company “Mine Zuyevska”.
7.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Khartsyzk Town Court against his employer seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation.
8.  On 6 November 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the company to pay him UAH 860.90 (around 142 euros – “EUR”). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 17 November 2000.
9.  On 6 December 2000 the Zhdanivskyi Local Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
10.  According to the Government, by two instalments of 16 and 18 September 2003, the full amount awarded by the judgment was transferred to the applicant’s bank account. The applicant did not contest this fact.
11.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Khartsyzk Town Court against his employer seeking recovery of salary arrears and higher sums of disability benefits, which had been allegedly incorrectly calculated by the defendant.
12.  On 7 May 2001 the court found in part for the applicant. The court ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 975.94 (around 161 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears and UAH 590 (around 98 euros – “EUR”) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and rejected the applicant’s claim for higher sums of disability benefits.
13.  The applicant did not appeal in cassation against this judgment, as he did not trust the higher judicial authorities.